Illegal part-time job cases escalating in brutality and decline in sense of norms
I feel a sense of crisis regarding so-called “illegal part-time job” cases, in which criminal groups are formed through social media, and their brutality is escalating.
There have already been many cases where “money collectors” and “ATM operatives” were recruited via social media for specialized fraud schemes (so-called remittance scam or “it’s me” scam). They are often arrested as a result of a pretend-to-be-deceived strategy using security cameras at banks and cooperation between victims and the police. However, as of now, there are few cases in which scam callers, who directly deceive victims, or masterminds, who issue orders, are arrested.
Because the masterminds are not arrested, crimes are committed in succession, and they tend to become more heinous. As seen in the so-called Luffy’s large-scale robbery case, criminal behavior is evolving from fraud to robbery and then to robbery causing death or injury. We can observe a trend of increasing brutality.
Crimes such as theft, robbery, and fraud are called property crimes. It is thought that the prevalence of property crimes is influenced by economic factors such as recession and social structural issues such as economic disparity. Property crime is a classical form of crime. Wherever there is society, there are crimes. In the sense that these are offenses driven by desire, they could be considered familiar crimes.
The problem is that this classical form of crime is becoming more sophisticated, owing to new technologies such as social media, and more malicious in nature. By using social media, criminal groups can be organized without meeting in person, leading to desensitization among participants in a group, and a greater inclination toward crime. In particular, specialized fraud schemes are evolving (in a negative way).
Cases involving minors are also increasing. Many of them become involved with the casual intention of just earning pocket money. There are even reports of cases where a person’s first offense was robbery. They are lured in by ads promising high-paying opportunities.
It is possible that the lack of education to foster a sense of norms at home and in schools contributes to this background. To address these problems, it is necessary to enhance crime prevention education at educational sites and implement public awareness campaigns about the risk of social media. Additionally, efforts to reduce the risk of young people being lured into crime through deepening communication at home are also important.
In any case, people who casually get involved in an illegal part-time job may end up bearing very serious responsibility. Especially, if someone causes the death of a victim, under Article 240 of the Penal Code (robbery causing death or injury), the person will face an extremely severe penalty of either death or life imprisonment.
Then, what penalty will be imposed on masterminds who were not at the crime scene? I would like to examine this point based on the legal concept of “co-principals.”
Criminal groups are held responsible for the entire shared crime
Generally, the term “complicity” is used on a daily basis. However, as a legal concept, it is categorized into co-principals, inducer, and accessory. Among these, co-principals are at the center of judicial precedents.
Co-principals are two or more persons who conspire with each other (exchange mutual intention) to commit a specific crime and carry out their respective roles as agreed. Article 60 of the Penal Code stipulates that “two or more persons who commit a crime in joint action are all principals.” This means that when two or more persons committed a crime together and divided the roles among themselves, they are not punished for the action of their part (i.e., individual crimes) but for the entire crime.
To give a concrete example, consider a robbery at a convenience store. A and B conspired to commit robbery, and A threatened a store clerk with a knife (intimidation), while B took cash from the register (theft). If this division of roles between the two is assessed as complicity, both would be responsible as co-principals in robbery under Article 60 of the Penal Code. The penalty will be severer than for individual acts of intimidation or theft.
Why is it possible to hold each participant, who only executed the divided task, responsible for heavier accountability? There are various views on this. However, I believe each participant forms a mutual complementation relationship, creating a group that aims to accomplish a specific crime based on this relationship, and this is the form of co-principals.
For example, A threatening the clerk alone cannot take the money, and B taking the money alone cannot suppress the clerk’s resistance. Thus, both persons work together and aim to complete the crime. To build such a relationship, an agreement to execute the crime between the participants must be formed. In other words, complicity exists.
If there is no complicity, then co-principals are not established, and Article 60 of the Penal Code does not apply. According to precedents, complicity is interpreted broadly. Even persons who are considered as inducers (a crime to induce others to commit crime) from a layperson’s perspective are in fact often regarded as co-principals.
Whether there was complicity between the ringleader and the operative is crucial
For instance, suppose a gang leader ordered a hitman to kill the deputy boss of a rival gang group and the hitman executed the order. In this case, the standard view is that, although the gang leader did not commit the crime at the scene, he would still be a co-principal for issuing the order.
Certainly, it was the hitman who killed the deputy boss, and the gang leader did not execute the divided act of murder. However, it is important to note that the crime would not have been committed without the gang leader’s order. From the perspective of the gang leader, the order was issued for his personal benefit. Thus, even though he did not directly kill someone on site, he did conspire, and it is judged that it was rather the gang leader who significantly contributed to the entire crime.
In recent illegal part-time job cases, whether there was complicity between a deceiver (mastermind) and ATM operatives and money collectors, and whether an exchange via social media alone (without planning the crime face-to-face) can be recognized as constituting co-principals in fraud, will be key issues.
Still, it may be possible to prove the crime based on social media communication. In this case, in court, they will focus on whether the participants acted in accordance with instructions of the sender, and whether there is evidence such as communication history and testimonies about multiple occurrences of deceptive communications to the victim’s house around that period.
Furthermore, even if they justify themselves by saying “I thought I just had to receive an ATM card in an envelope” or “I thought I just had to withdraw cash from someone’s bank account as instructed,” if the behavior itself is regarded as unnatural in society and the specialized fraud scheme itself (including the criminal form) is socially recognized quite well, even if the money collector and the ATM operative are minors, it can be said that they could recognize that they were partially responsible for the scheme.
In robbery cases, while the mastermind and the ringleader were absent from the scene, those who received their instructions all broke into someone’s home, attacked and intimidated the victim, and stole money. Thus, it is obvious that those physically present are guilty as co-principals in robbery.
Moreover, when masterminds are arrested, they will also be held responsible as co-principals in robbery. You may question why masterminds, who are often absent from the scene, can also be responsible for committing robbery. However, as long as there was a mutual complementary relationship between masterminds, who were absent from the scene, and operatives, it is natural to consider that they are accountable as co-principals. After all, the operatives would not have committed robbery without the mastermind’s instructions and orders. Therefore, the level of contribution by the mastermind to the entire crime can be said to be very high.
In that sense, a person who acted as a driver and drove the operatives by car to the scene, and after completion of the crime, drove them to a safe location to help them escape from being arrested, can also naturally be said to be responsible as a co-principal in committing robbery, as long as a mutual complementary relationship between the operative and the driver is recognized.
Will the situation of “being endangered if I don’t obey” be taken into account?
As mentioned earlier, cases involving robbery operatives who injured or killed a person are especially gaining attention in connection with illegal part-time jobs. Legally, Article 240 of the Penal Code applies, and each participant may be held accountable as a co-principal in robbery causing death or injury.
In such cases, the level and nature of instructions will be central in determining whether the mastermind is a co-principal in robbery causing death or injury. If murder or injury was not conspired in advance, the mastermind may only be guilty of robbery. However, if murder was recognized as a result of robbery, or there were prior instructions such as “handle with flexibility on site” or “do whatever it takes,” the mastermind could be also be charged as a co-principal in robbery causing death or injury.
In any case, a grave offense with a potential death penalty is committed together by people meeting for the first time on the day and getting in a van, being instructed via social media message by someone they do not know so well. Such a crime style seems to deviate significantly from the traditional image of complicity = co-principals.
It is beginning to surface that there are situations where operatives are threatened by masterminds (ringleaders) who have their private information. For instance, they are told, “If you don’t obey my orders, I will attack your family.” For example, at the scene, some may be held at gunpoint from behind and told “hit him” and otherwise lives of their own or family members are endangered. In such extreme cases, it cannot be said that these circumstances will never be considered.
The Penal Code includes the idea that “you are blameworthy if you choose to commit an illegal act while you had the option to act legally.” Nevertheless, even if they were in a situation where they could not do otherwise because they were threatened, if the court judges that they could have avoided the illegal act by consulting the police, etc., before going to the robbery site that might develop into murder, it is highly possible that they still cannot escape blame.
Again, the criminal penalty for causing death of the victim in the crime of robbery causing death or injury is either the death penalty or life imprisonment. When looking at illegal part-time job cases in media reports, etc., many people in society would wonder, “why would anyone do something like this?” Or, they cannot imagine themselves ever becoming a perpetrator of such a crime.
However, in a society where a single event can trigger the downfall of a life that was going well, I believe anyone could become a criminal.
Of course, crime is something to be condemned, and criminals should be held responsible as individuals. However, at the same time, humans are vulnerable beings. I would like to stress that a small mistake can lead someone to become a criminal. That is why I think it is important to have a perspective that focuses on preventing crime, as well as punishing it.
* The information contained herein is current as of October 2024.
* The contents of articles on Meiji.net are based on the personal ideas and opinions of the author and do not indicate the official opinion of Meiji University.
* I work to achieve SDGs related to the educational and research themes that I am currently engaged in.
Information noted in the articles and videos, such as positions and affiliations, are current at the time of production.